Le Mystere Picasso’ probes artist’s process

Rebecca M. Alvin

Thursday

May 24, 2007 at 12:01 AMMay 24, 2007 at 10:48 PM

Henri-Georges Clouzot’s “Le Mystere Picasso” (1956) begins with a statement of purpose it can never live up to: “we'd love to know that secret process guiding the creator through this perilous adventure.” It is fitting for the Provincetown Art Association and Museum to present a film with such a bold mission as part of its ongoing revival film series. But believe it or not, Pablo Picasso has nothing to do with why this film is interesting.The implication is that this film will visualize for us the mental processes that Picasso goes through in making a painting. For the first half an hour, we watch Picasso paint without actually seeing any part of him at all. He paints directly onto a transparency, with a camera on the other side, in such a way that we see his work constructed before our eyes as if it were being marked on the canvas by an invisible arm. The effect appears like cel animation, but that’s not what it is (although some stop-motion techniques are used to speed up the painting time). This strange visual is at first interesting because of the unique method of its construction, which has not yet been revealed to us. Then, it is

Henri-Georges Clouzot’s “Le Mystere Picasso” (1956) begins with a statement of purpose it can never live up to: “we'd love to know that secret process guiding the creator through this perilous adventure.” It is fitting for the Provincetown Art Association and Museum to present a film with such a bold mission as part of its ongoing revival film series. But believe it or not, Pablo Picasso has nothing to do with why this film is interesting.The implication is that this film will visualize for us the mental processes that Picasso goes through in making a painting. For the first half an hour, we watch Picasso paint without actually seeing any part of him at all. He paints directly onto a transparency, with a camera on the other side, in such a way that we see his work constructed before our eyes as if it were being marked on the canvas by an invisible arm. The effect appears like cel animation, but that’s not what it is (although some stop-motion techniques are used to speed up the painting time). This strange visual is at first interesting because of the unique method of its construction, which has not yet been revealed to us. Then, it is interesting because we realize that we are able to watch Picasso’s impulses as a painter. Designs change dramatically as he creates each work for the camera. Fish change into roosters. Small figures emerge on a landscape altering the entire meaning of the original painting. Large globs of paint cover areas where the painter has had second thoughts.But about midway through the film, the production itself is revealed to us and we actually see Clouzot and Picasso and cameraman Claude Renoir in action. There is some discussion about film running out and how best to make use of the remaining film, and a sequence where Picasso boasts that he can finish before the film runs out. There’s a shot of the counter on the camera, a suspenseful moment that reveals the reflexive impulse behind Clouzot’s work.“Le Mystere Picasso” is a misleading title, as is the opening statement, because what the film is really about is le mystere cinéma. To show us the process of an artist, Clouzot must reveal the limitations of filmmaking. From that point on, the film is more about the mechanism of the film camera and the documentary process than it is about Picasso. After all, simply seeing Picasso’s brushstrokes in action doesn’t really tell us anything about the mental process that enabled him to be a master artist. It is novel and mildly interesting as a starting point, but even as the film feels quite dated to contemporary eyes, it is still interesting for its comment on the filmmaking process and its limits.“Le Mystere Picasso” is not an easy film to get all the way through, even at 77 minutes. It is meditative and open. There is little dialogue and few moments when people are on the screen. Also, Georges Auric’s score can be overwhelming at times. But these kinds of cinematic adventures need to be seen to remind us what is possible in the art of film. It doesn’t have to be wall-to-wall talking or conventionally composed documentary form in order to be revealing.